After reading the 4x10 thread, I took one of my 4x5 holders and cut one of the darkslides to try the half darkslide method of getting that aspect ratio. Has anyone else tried this?

Film and developing costs are not that prohibitive, but I will likely be payaing for scans, so two images for one sounds good there.

dazedgonebye

12-Dec-2008, 11:45

Here's one person I know of...

http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=4857

Darren Kruger

12-Dec-2008, 12:06

After reading the 4x10 thread, I took one of my 4x5 holders and cut one of the darkslides to try the half darkslide method of getting that aspect ratio. Has anyone else tried this?

I use a cut darkslide for 4x5" film testing. I haven't shot in the field with it, but I have composed shots where I knew I didn't care abotu the bottom half of the image.

I do believe that the 2x5" size is real close to the 6x12cm roll film format.

-Darren

MPrice

12-Dec-2008, 12:09

I'm planning on trying it out this weekend with an old darkslide on 4x5, if it works out well I'll have to find a spare 8x10 darkslide to do the same for the larger format, I'll let you know how it goes...

Daniel_Buck

12-Dec-2008, 12:25

it would certainly work :-)

h2oman

12-Dec-2008, 12:28

Thanks for the responses - I guess I'm not totally out to lunch on this one. I'm going to give it a shot in the next week or two, but I only send film out when I have 20-30 sheets ready, so I'll have to wait a bit for my results.

One serious flaw in my plan to save $$$ for scanning chromes is that the probablity of a single decent shot is low, and the probability of getting two with any value on one sheet is then very close to zero!:o

Ken Lee

12-Dec-2008, 13:05

You may find it even easier to simply mark the ground glass with some removable painter's tape.

That way, you can shoot 2x5, 3x5, 1x5, whatever you want, whenever you want... even goofy shapes like 3.1 x 5 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/recent/index.html?6).

No need to mess with dark slides and remember which which is which - or which which was which.

BrianShaw

12-Dec-2008, 13:33

One serious flaw in my plan to save $$$ for scanning chromes is that the probablity of a single decent shot is low, and the probability of getting two with any value on one sheet is then very close to zero!:o

Why would this be? If you can get decent exposure in Chromes using 4x5 then you should be able to do the same in 2x5. Or am I missing something? Personally, I wouldn't worry about getting two Pulitzer Prize winners on the same sheet.

Somewhere I read some advice to NOT cut the darkslide EXACTLY in half, but slightly less than half... to leave a rebate between the two images. I haven't done that yet but it sounded like a good idea.

BradS

12-Dec-2008, 13:35

I tried the half darkslide trick and found the added dark slide makes things much more complex and therefore, makes it much easier to screw up. so, now, I just compose shots knowing that I'm going to crop out the bottom or top half when printing. Same end...with much, much less complexity.

Jess C

12-Dec-2008, 13:48

You may find it even easier to simply mark the ground glass with some removable painter's tape.

That way, you can shoot 2x5, 3x5, 1x5, whatever you want... even 3.1 x 5 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/recent/index.html?6).

No need to mess with dark slides and remember which which is which - or which which was which.

I agree. This is much simpler. I have a mask that I cut out of a used support backing from T-Max readyload pack film. I cut the mask to fit the outside of my ground glass and then cut the cropped format for the mask using an X-acto knife. It is easy to attach and removed the mask from the ground glass using a piece of masking tape (I prefer black photo tape). You can cut several in your choice of format.

h2oman

12-Dec-2008, 14:29

I don't anticipate a problem with the correct exposure on the two halves. But one of my main reasons for trying this is to get two scans for the price of one, and what I'm saying is that I take so very few (aesthetically, not technically) good shots that it is unlikely I'll get two I want scanned on the same transparency.

For "panoramics" I have an even simpler method of masking the ground glass than tape. I've cut some strips out of cardstock that I just slip under the metal springs that hold the ground glass in. I started with a pair that blocked out the top and bottom to give a 4x10 ratio, and another pair that gives a 6x12 ratio. Those were strictly for compositional purposes only - I still exposed an entire sheet of film. For the the half-darkslide experiment I made another strip that blocks the entire bottom half.

On the 4x10 thread I read that the slide should cover just over half of the film, so I cut mine that way. I should get a strip of 2-4mm between the two exposures, I think.

I'm glad to see there are so many people out there doing the "McGuyver" thing in LF!

Nathan Potter

12-Dec-2008, 16:28

How do I do the above using Quickloads? Anyone worked out a method? I have an aversion to darkslides.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

tim o'brien

14-Dec-2008, 01:09

How do I do the above using Quickloads? Anyone worked out a method? I have an aversion to darkslides.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Buy yerself a Deardorff with the half masks already made to allow for this format. They fit in the front of the GG instead of on the film plane.

tim in san jose

Nigels

18-Dec-2008, 06:48

I have made a half dark slide and also cut a replacement GG cover with the 2x5 aperture in it for composing. I have stuck A/B labels on my dark slides so when I make notes I include the A/B and therefore record which part of the sheet has been exposed. I can then expose the second half days later and not make a double exposure mistake. I would add though that recently I just havn't bothered as I would prefer to exposed across the middle and then crop. This at least means I can go 3x5 if need be - I choice I don't have if I use the half dark slide. I'm glad I have it as an option in my kit but its rarely used these days as I use mainly Quickload now.

Alan Rabe

18-Dec-2008, 08:25

I may be a little dense here, But I don't understand the reasoning behind butchering a darkslide for this format. I understand 8x10 and higher as the price of film and that they are primarily contact printed. But 4x5 is not expensive and it is primarily used in enlarger's and you can crop the image any way you want. So why go to all this trouble for a 2x5 negative?:confused:

Brandon Draper

18-Dec-2008, 08:29

Alan, I was about to ask the same question. I don't get it either.

Please enlighten us.

h2oman

18-Dec-2008, 09:07

I'm coming at this from the perspective of shooting color transparencies and getting them drum scanned by a lab at a cost of $50-150 for a scan of a 4x5. You're right about the cost not being that much for the film itself and development. As I've stated before, though, this is only an advantage if a person can manage to get two good shots on the same piece of film! And maybe one could just use scissors to crop a 4x5 tranny and get that scanned for a reduced cost, but I doubt it would be half, since at least some of the cost for drum scans is to cover the considerable labor.

As far as butchering a film holder/dark slide, that is a very minimal cost for 4x5 as well given that there are loads of used ones available for very little.

For anything where a person is doing all the processing themselves, this makes little or no sense, I agree!:)

Chris623

18-Dec-2008, 09:31

After reading the 4x10 thread, I took one of my 4x5 holders and cut one of the darkslides to try the half darkslide method of getting that aspect ratio. Has anyone else tried this?

Film and developing costs are not that prohibitive, but I will likely be payaing for scans, so two images for one sounds good there.

Many years ago I built a custom wide angle camera to utilize a 65mm Super Angulon I'd purchased. I designed the camera to be used for pano's and made a clear Plexiglass "slider" that fit the 2 1/2x5 format and afixed it so it would slide up and down inside the Graflock back. I blackened the edges of the Plex so the format stod out. It allowed me to get a good preview of what I was trying to shoot. Being clear, it didn't bother when I was intending to use the entire 4x5 area. Worked for me.

Colin Graham

18-Dec-2008, 09:39

That's a good point about scans, if you can get similar enough contrast ranges on the same piece of film so that one half of the film wouldn't compromise the other. But by then, it seems like you're skirting roll film territory and might be better off with a 6x12 back. Sorry, just thinking out loud.

I tried the split darkslide for awhile, but I'm borderline dyslexic and would expose 4 shots on the same two halves of film in the holder, or would accidentally put a 8 SBR on the same half with a 12 and have to sacrifice one in developing. Just my experience, and I don't doubt that anyone could manage much better than I did. But I finally just cut a 2x5 inch U-shaped notch in the middle of a darkslide and made a matching mask for the ground glass for composing. This was just B&W so the cost was negligible.

My wife asked why I didn't just crop from a full frame, but we wont speak of this, nor the need to ultimately just go ahead and make a dedicated pano camera. ;-)

Pat Kearns

18-Dec-2008, 11:25

Not to long ago I bought a few more 4x5 holders off ebay and one had a darkslide with a serious crack in it. So I cut the darkslide for the 2x5 and drew a dividing line on my GG with a pencil. I've made a few negatives that have interesting pano look but I haven't printed them yet.

dazedgonebye

18-Dec-2008, 13:48

I just ordered my first 4x5 film. Ilford fp4. 100 sheets for $93 with shipping.

$0.93/shot for a full frame 4x5 that I crop down to pano dimensions.
$0.47/shot for a half frame shot using a half darkslide.

I guess if I planned on doing quite a few panos, this might be worth the effort.

More importantly, I think I'd rather have the versatility of capturing all I can and then cropping in post processing.
Might be worth marking the glass for pano to help with visualization.

Riverman

20-Dec-2008, 10:49

Funny - I was looking over some 4x5 contacts this afternoon, fairly dull landscapes shot on a 150mm lens, then realised that the sky and foreground cropped out well to reveal an interesting 2x5 panorama. I had been on the look out for a Horseman 6x12 back. Don't think I'll bother now!

Kuzano

20-Dec-2008, 11:09

Funny - I was looking over some 4x5 contacts this afternoon, fairly dull landscapes shot on a 150mm lens, then realised that the sky and foreground cropped out well to reveal an interesting 2x5 panorama. I had been on the look out for a Horseman 6x12 back. Don't think I'll bother now!

That's one of the reasons, among many, why 5X7 is a more attractive format than 4X5. Look at the prices of 6X17Cm cameras, and then look at the advantages of cropping the center out of a 5X7, which comes to 17Cm wide. Add perspective control, less expensive and more versatile lens choices. The list goes on.

I keep seeing those dedicated 6X17 systems starting at $3000 and up and wonder .... Why?

Kirk Fry

20-Dec-2008, 11:28

I think the advantage of 4X10 cameras is that the mass of the box is much closer to 4X5 than 8X10. That is about it. It is virtually impossible to get 4X10 color film processed unless you do it yourself (and if you do find someone to do it they charge 8X10 prices), the types of precut film is very limited and you have to use goofy, expensive, non-standard film holders. Moving to 2 X 5 hardly gains anything compared to just cropping. (maybe a slight cost advantage, maybe)

K

raucousimages

21-Dec-2008, 09:50

I tried it but didn't like the hassle. I just compose the 2x4 in the center of a full size neg and crop when I print.